Artificial intelligence is reshaping how physical security systems are designed, deployed and managed. From video analytics and access control event correlation to real-time alarm triage, AI is now embedded across surveillance and security platforms.
Yet despite rapid technological progress, industry leaders consistently point to one reality: human judgement remains central to security decision-making.
For systems integrators and consultants, this distinction is not theoretical. It directly affects how solutions are architected, how monitoring centers operate and how accountability is defined in high-stakes environments.
AI as a force multiplier, not a decision-maker
Across the sector, AI’s strength lies in detection, pattern recognition and data processing. Modern analytics engines can ingest video feeds, access control logs and sensor data at scale. They reduce false positives, highlight anomalies and correlate events faster than human operators could manually.
However, Matt Tengwall, Senior Vice President and Global General Manager of Verint Fraud & Security Solutions, stresses that technology has limits.
“Judgement and accountability remain human responsibilities,” he says. “Analytics can surface patterns and highlight unusual behavior, but they cannot fully interpret intent, customer sensitivity, or business impact. Decisions such as whether to involve law enforcement, how to manage sensitive customer situations, or when to escalate internally rely on experience and situational awareness. Human operators also validate alerts and interpret scenarios that fall outside expected patterns.”
For integrators deploying AI-enabled video management systems or cloud-based monitoring platforms, this underscores the importance of maintaining human oversight in the operational loop. Automated alerting may streamline workflows, but the escalation path still requires experienced personnel.
Accountability and trust cannot be automated
As AI matures, questions around accountability become more pressing. Security decisions often carry legal, reputational and operational consequences. Whether it involves denying access, dispatching guards or notifying authorities, the final decision can impact rights and public trust.
Jason Crawforth, Founder and CEO of SWEAR, highlights this dimension. “No matter how advanced AI becomes, people must still decide what evidence is sufficient, what risks are acceptable, and what consequences matter most,” he says. “Decisions that affect accountability, rights, or public confidence cannot be delegated entirely to algorithms. Technology can verify, surface, and analyze, but humans determine what’s next. In security, the final authority isn’t intelligence — it’s trust, and that ultimately rests with people.”
For consultants advising enterprise or critical infrastructure clients, this perspective reinforces the need for governance frameworks. AI-driven video analytics and access control decisions must be backed by clear policies defining when human review is mandatory.
Understanding intent and real-world consequences
AI systems excel at identifying anomalies. They detect unusual motion, abnormal access patterns or deviations from baseline behavior. But identifying an anomaly is not the same as understanding intent.
Kurt Takahashi, CEO of Netwatch, points out the gap between detection and interpretation. “As capable as AI has become at detection and analysis, there are still moments where human judgment simply can’t be replaced,” he says. “AI can sift through massive amounts of data, recognize patterns, and call out unusual behavior but it doesn’t grasp intent or real-world consequences, especially when decisions carry real risk.”
He adds that “Security operators bring experience, intuition, and situational awareness to the table. They understand what’s normal, how an incident could impact operations, and when a response needs to be escalated or restrained.”
For remote guarding and central monitoring environments, this distinction is critical. An AI model may flag loitering at a perimeter, but only a trained operator can assess context. Is it a delivery driver waiting for clearance, a maintenance worker or a genuine threat? The operational response depends on that judgement.
Takahashi concludes, “AI is most effective when it plays a supporting role in this process. It reduces noise, draws attention to what truly matters, and giving teams the clarity they need to act quickly. Automation can speed things up and sharpen focus, but it doesn’t make the final call. In the end, AI helps inform decisions but our people are the ones who make them.”
Nuance, ethics and risk tolerance
Security environments are rarely binary. Many scenarios involve ambiguous behavior, conflicting signals or sensitive human factors.
Greg Colaluca, CEO of Intellicene, argues that human involvement remains pervasive across decision-making layers.
“Every aspect of decision-making requires human touch,” he says. “AI is advancing fast, but it’s here to support our security teams — not replace them. The industry has recognized the value of AI and automation as tools to correlate continuous data streams, improve detection, and enhance human decision-making, but these systems can’t run the show themselves.”
Incident response, he notes, requires “nuance, ethical consideration, and situational awareness that grow from experience and training.” Human operators “weigh intent, assess risk tolerance, interpret ambiguous behavior, and choose appropriate responses.”
For integrators designing multi-layered security systems, this suggests that AI should be embedded within workflows that prioritize human review at defined checkpoints. Automated door lockdown triggered by analytics, for example, may need supervisory approval in certain occupancy scenarios to prevent unintended safety issues.
Leadership, context and mission priorities
Beyond frontline operators, security leadership also plays a decisive role in interpreting AI-generated insights.
Paul Donahue, President of Global Security Services at Constellis, emphasizes that even as sensing and analytics advance, “human judgment remains central.”
“Technology can surface patterns, reveal connections, and bring structure to complexity, but it does not replace experience or accountability,” he says. “Operators recognize nuances that systems cannot fully interpret.”
At the leadership level, decision-making often involves balancing operational continuity, safety and mission objectives.
“Leaders weigh operational impact, safety, and mission priorities, requiring context and judgment,” Donahue says. “The greatest value comes from elevating human capability, giving people clearer insight so they can act with confidence rather than replacing their role in decision-making.”
For consultants working with enterprise security directors, this reinforces the importance of dashboards and analytics tools that provide actionable clarity rather than overwhelming detail. AI must enhance strategic visibility without diminishing executive accountability.
Human responsibility in high-stakes environments
Jeff Groom, Director of Engineering, AI, at Acre Security, echoes the view that responsibility ultimately resides with people.
“Human judgment remains central across the board,” he says. “While AI can guide faster decisions by surfacing patterns and insights, ultimate responsibility, especially in nuanced or high-stakes scenarios, still rests with experienced professionals.”
He describes AI solutions as “versatile tools that support and strengthen security operations by providing easy access to data, enabling human operators to quickly consolidate vast amounts of information and detect patterns they might otherwise miss.”
This capability is particularly relevant in integrated environments where video surveillance, access control, intrusion detection and identity systems converge. AI-driven correlation can dramatically reduce investigation time. However, Groom underscores that the goal is to enable better human decisions, not automate authority.
“This enables security teams to make informed decisions when they matter most, with the support of technology,” he says. “As AI matures and capabilities grow, we’ll likely see the role of these systems expand beyond current limitations. However, human judgment will always be central to effective decision-making.”
Implications for integrators and consultants
For physical security professionals, the consensus across industry leaders is clear. AI is a force multiplier that enhances detection, reduces noise and accelerates insight. It is not a replacement for human judgement.
In practical terms, this has several implications:
First, system design must preserve human oversight. Integrators should ensure that automated alerts feed into structured review processes rather than bypassing operators entirely.
Second, governance frameworks must define accountability. Clients need clarity on who makes final decisions in scenarios triggered by AI analytics, whether in access denial, perimeter response or escalation to law enforcement.
Third, training becomes more important, not less. As automation handles repetitive tasks, operators and supervisors must focus on higher-level interpretation, ethical considerations and risk assessment.
Finally, solution messaging should reflect realistic capabilities. Overstating AI autonomy can create liability and unrealistic expectations. Positioning AI as a tool that “reduces noise” and “draws attention to what truly matters,” as Takahashi describes, aligns more closely with operational reality.
A balanced path forward
The security industry is moving rapidly toward greater automation and data-driven operations. Edge analytics, cloud-based platforms and AI-enhanced access control are becoming standard components of modern deployments.
Yet across diverse perspectives, one principle remains consistent. AI informs decisions. Humans make them.
For systems integrators and consultants, success will depend on striking that balance. The most effective deployments will be those that harness AI to elevate human capability, sharpen situational awareness and strengthen trust, while ensuring that accountability and judgement remain firmly in human hands.